The Problem of Truth: Locke: The Empiricist—Book II

Epistemology is a sector of philosophy that attempts to figure out how to gain knowledge. Both Descartes and Locke, in their writings, addressed epistemology. However, Locke took the empiricist view. The empiricist believes knowledge is gained through the experiences one has. Locke believes we must use the “faculties of the mind” to get to the truth. The faculties are what humans use to discover the truth. One faculty of the mind is perception. Locke rejects that what we see the material world, but we see certain images and representations (what we perceive). He also states that judgment can alter perception (II.ix.8). For example, one can perceive something from their senses but the input from other people may alter their perceptions. Another faculty is “of discerning and distinguishing.” Locke stated, “Unless the mind had a distinct perception of different objects and their qualities, it would be capable of very little knowledge.” (II.xi.1) Thus, if one cannot use the faculty of discerning one will never get at the truth, and live in a falsehood. Locke also explains what is good and evil is determined by pleasure and pain. Good is defined as increased pleasure or decreased pain; evil is defined as decreased pleasure or increased pain (II.xx.2). He further explains if someone loves grapes they love them because they taste good and increase pleasure (II.xx.4).

Locke: idea of God

Locke States that the idea of God varies from man to man. This seems to me to be very true since there are so many different ways to have views of what and who god is. Each person may have a slightly different way to worship or how they picture God but in general people have the same idea of what God is.  "Our knowledge of material things is probabilistic and thus opinion rather than knowledge. Thus our “knowledge” of external objects is inferior to our knowledge of mathematics and morality, of ourselves, and of God." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. 

The God Problem: Information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Book II & IV
***God is an idea of substance and not an idea of modes. This means God exists independently rather than dependently. Things that exist dependently, such as language, would be an idea of modes****
***James Tyrell claims the reason why Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was to discuss "about the principles of morality and revealed religion"***
***Locke believed individuals use their reason first and foremost; when reason can not explain an event they look to their faith (and "what is revealed is above reason"). So original revelations come from God and traditional revelations are the original revelations passed down to others. Revelations cannot be the opposite of what is true. Thus, one can have revelations about angels, the heavens or hell, but not about things known to be true by reason.***
***Reason and faith have "strict boundaries"***
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

modes of pleasure and pain

we catagorize pleasure and pain by what we believe is good and evil. then we catagorize good and evil with a reference to pleasure and pain. pain and pleasure are said to only be a state of mind we put things in. he's saying that love changes just as abrubtly as is may of started, for the thought if love may be pleasurable something can alter for this delight to now cause pain. which changes the thought or state of mind about love. love and hatred only stem frome the pain or pleasure something gives us. like any other feeling, hatred is only a state of mind. it may be caused from a bad experience we have had. depending on what kind of effect something had on us, determins the way we classify it into love or hatred. I have to agree with this because as we are young little kids don't hate anything... thats because they haven't lived long enough for something to have a negative inpact on them. and when that does happen, it's going to turn into the state of mind as they hate it. this is all about experiences that the mind and body have in the course of a lifetime that begin the love hate beliefs.

modes of pleasure and pain

Locke II.III.--> book two chapter 3

ideas enter our minds using not one, but several sences. some sences are particularly made to recieve certain ideas. If a particular sence isn't working correctly, that idea will not be "viewed" or will have no way of being understood. each sence creats many different simple ideas for that sence. i believe Locke is saying that after an undisclosed amout of time we don't even recognize or have to think about the simple ideas any more because they have become so routine. But it is because of these countless simple ideas we can put together complex ideas.

Locke: what is Knowledge?

"The perception of the connexion and agreement or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our Ideas" This is how Locke defined knowledge.  This is an interesting definition because he is saying that things that have been debated are knowledge more or less. I like this concept and i have never really looked at this way. Since we have always been taught that the definition of a word is just what ever webster has to say. Looking at this definition i see that there is more then one right way to look at things. Descarte looks at knowledge through dreaming was a large part of knowledge but his idea is nothing like lockes take on it. I find that this a much clearer idea then what Descarte was speaking of.

The Idea of God ... Locke pg 44

Not innate? According to Locke he thought that since people have to learn what and who God is that he is innate. "...since it is hard to conceive how there should be innate morals principles without an innate idea of a deity." This just shows that he thinks that god is only linked to some kind of religion has to be attached to the idea of God. And i think that in some way he is right and wrong. yes most people put god and religion together but other people may just believe in some sort of god to have something higher to look to for guidance or spiritual help.

The Problem of Truth: How do we acquire truths?

Although Locke argues against the idea of innate truths, he does admit that some truths do appear very early in the mind. Our mind obtains truth by using our sense organs. “The senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet” (I ii 15, pg 17). And as we start filling the “empty cabinet” with ideas and language we begin to use reason more. Locke argues that before a child can speak or use reason he or she can distinguish between bitter and sweet. The child is acquiring truth but not using reason to do so. He also argues that a child does not know that four and three are equal to seven until he or she learns how to count. In Section 16 of Book 1 Chap 2 (page 18) Locke says, “but the truth of it appears to him (the child) as soon as he has settled in his mind the clear and distinct ideas that these names stand for; and then he knows the truth of that proposition upon the same grounds, and by the same means, that he knew before, that a rod and cherry are not the same thing.” Locke is definitely in opposition to the idea of having any innate ideas and even innate truths. His opposition proves even stronger when later in Book I he opposes the idea of God as being innate.

The Problem of Truth: Innate or Acquired

Descartes believed God enabled human beings to know all the truths of the world but only through the use of reason. However, Locke opposes Descartes view. Locke believes “it is false that reason discovers them” (them referring to truths) (I. ii 9, pg 15). A little bit later in Section 9 on page 15 Locke says, “if men have those innate impressed truths originally, and before the use of reason, and yet are always ignorant of them till they come to the use of reason, it is in effect to say that men know, and know them not, at the same time.” This is an excellent point Locke makes. How can you know something and not know it simultaneously? As Locke points out, it doesn’t make sense. The Stanford Encyclopedia also mentioned, “Locke's first point is that if propositions were innate they should be immediately perceived — by infants and idiots (and indeed everyone else) — but there is no evidence that they are.” So obviously Locke strongly argues against Descartes philosophy of innate truths.